In re Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cohen

282 A.D.2d 866, 723 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 866 (In re Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Cohen, 282 A.D.2d 866, 723 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1982. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Maryland, where he was admitted to practice in 1981.

By order dated January 9, 2001, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent upon his consent. In that proceeding, he acknowledged that he could not successfully defend himself against charges of misconduct including mishandling and misappropriation of fiduciary funds entrusted to him, neglect of a client matter, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary agency.

We grant petitioner’s unopposed motion for an order, pursuant to this Court’s rules, imposing reciprocal discipline (see, 22 [867]*867NYCRR 806.19). We further conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1982. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Maryland, where he was admitted to practice in 1981.

By order dated January 9, 2001, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent upon his consent. In that proceeding, he acknowledged that he could not successfully defend himself against charges of misconduct including mishandling and misappropriation of fiduciary funds entrusted to him, neglect of a client matter, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary agency.

We grant petitioner’s unopposed motion for an order, pursuant to this Court’s rules, imposing reciprocal discipline (see, 22 [867]*867NYCRR 806.19). We further conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 866, 723 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cohen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack